Deepa Kumar's Presentation

I enjoyed Deepa Kumar’s presentation on Wednesday, although my first reaction would be that along with informative, it was disheartening to learn (more) about the “construction of the Muslim enemy.” History is filled with events and stories such as those Kumar illustrated; it does not get easier to learn about them. If I took one theme away from her lecture, it was this: language is not static.

There is a consequence to the way we (Western civilization) present the Muslim world. It seems that the words Muslim and terrorist are used in tandem.  This is problematic, as Kumar suggested, because we’re focused on the fundamentalists and the terrorists. Ultimately, it seems many people believe that every Muslim is a terrorist or fundamentalists or that all terrorists are Muslim. People forget that there are other terrorists groups, all over the world, that have nothing to do with Islam.

Consider the Klu Klux Klan from the West (more specifically, America). They may not be involved in terrorist activity anymore, or that we know of, but they terrorized African American’s up through recent history. Maybe the Klu Klux Klan is not comparable to other terrorists groups, however, I believe that the one of the purposes of a terrorist group is terrorize. The Klu Klux Klan did just that.

On the Topic of Personal Responsibility

I am taking two classes this semester at North Central and in the last few sessions of the other course I am in, we have had discussion on the notion of personal responsibility. I like the idea of personal responsibility for the most part. One is responsible for oneself, essentially. A problem seems to arise though, when an individual is not responsible for himself.
Consider the context of this discussion –healthcare.

If an uninsured person chooses to live an unhealthy life and down the line, they are diagnosed with a treatable but expensive disease, is this person entitled to healthcare? My first inclination is that most people would say “no,” but I have been wrong before. Regardless, my problem goes beyond this.

Why is it that the majority of us (again, I'm just guessing) would say no? Why not consider helping this individual, even if the state they’re in, is of their own making? They may not deserve healthcare, but I would argue that it’s not about deserving. It’s about society’s attitude towards helping people in need. The boogieman has been built up. The political spell has been cast, I suppose. We demonize the individual who uses recreational drugs, who has weight issues, who drinks too much, yet, couldn’t one argue that plenty of us live in unhealthy ways?

Saying, ‘if you don’t live this way, then you don’t get help’, seems to be the wrong route to take.

**(This blog has a number of holes in it. I hardly know my questions and I don’t know the answers, but I know I am unhappy with the suggestion that one person could be more deserving than the next when having access to healthcare. It just doesn’t seem right. But what is right and what is fair? I don’t know)**

Just for Fun

I admit it. Sometimes I watch Bill O’Reilly to get a good laugh in.

A Public Intellectual of Today

Jon Stewart would be my number one public intellectual. In my previous post, “Pro Posner” I suggest that pundits today have political agenda’s they are driven by. The consequence of this can be an uninformed public. I appreciate Stewart, as I believe he attempts to inform the public, while not necessarily pushing his own political agenda. I realize that this can be easily criticized. Stewart clearly leans left, so how can one argue that Bill O’Reilly has agenda and Stewart not have one? Stewart uses valid arguments and reason to address critical issues.

I did confront the issue of evoking stereotypes and emotions in my previous post as well. If anything, Stewart tries to evoke a desire in the people to understand issues of all kinds, act based on the truth and think logically.

The video posted below demonstrates everything I just said. :-)



 

A Public Intellectual of the Past

After class on Monday I started thinking about who was a significant public intellectual to me, a historical or present day figure. The first name that came to mind was Margaret Sanger. Sanger was an advocate for reform; she saw a problem in society and she wanted to make a change.

Sanger is responsible for one of the most controversial methods of medicine - that is birth control. A proponent for women being able to take control of their bodies, Sanger wrote about issues relating to women, sex education, pregnancy and family planning. Her ideas were radical and as you can imagine, there were repercussions; the most famous being the Comstock Laws.  These laws made it illegal for people to send pamphlets/writing/news regarding birth control, family planning or abortions by mail, because it was considered pornography. Depsite the ludacris thinking of her day, society has improved because of Sanger and her dedication to education, information, access and ending the oppression of women.

 

Pro Posner

I enjoyed Posner’s text and am not offended by his attitude or his judgment. Posner brings up valid points about public intellectuals, his colleagues, the media, and the responsibility they each have towards the public and public discourse. Everyone involved in addressing the public  whether they are public intellectuals or a mere public figure, ought  to use valid arguments and reason (as is used in analytic philosophy) when addressing and informing the uninformed public. I had to laugh as I was reading The Space of Opinion. There is passage (on page 24) where Walter Lippmann suggests that the media spends too much time simplifying and condensing information when addressing the public. Lippmann believed in individuals who could share with society, “a deeper understanding of what was really important.” I think Posner’s argument is of the same thinking with regard to public intellectuals, though. Lippmann suggested that media “reinforced the simplistic stereotypes and emotional prejudices of its audience.” This problem remains today, as pundits continue to evoke similar tactics, I think, with the intention to push political agendas. Chaos on Bullshit Mountain, anyone? :-)

 

I Believe

I still believe in public intellectuals.

Grocery Store Celebrities

Habermas’ concern over “the decline of rational debate and the deterioration of the media from organs of public opinion to agents of propaganda” is well grounded, all-the-while unfortunate. The media is a constantly functioning institution that focuses on pop culture as news. Consider this: while I was shopping for groceries today, I was contemplating my surroundings in the checkout line. What drew my attention immediately, were the magazines. Such titles being sold were, Star Magazine, People, Family Circle and Time. Maybe the latter two of this group don’t play as big of a role in acting as voices of pop-culture, but the first two, do. I learned that one of the Kardashin sisters left her husband, Christina Aguilera has an eating problem and Jessica Simpson has still not lost that baby weight. Yet, this week a revolution of sorts swept through the Muslim world and the magazine’s I saw mentioned nothing of it. Perhaps, facing a sad reality of the world is not meant to happen while grocery shopping. Perhaps, facing an even sadder reality, that of Jessica Simpson not losing weight, is more important than revolution and unrest.

A General Statement

The public sphere and public life are in a state of distress. A space once used to contemplate and debate the relationship of private individuals and public individuals or political agents (i.e. monarchs, nobles, politicians, laws) has now become polluted. The pollution is ride ranging; from discussions of celebrities to the debate over birth control, the media plays a decisive role in determining, what is important. Defining the changes within public discourse can create a better understanding as to what has gone wrong throughout time.